Wright County Board Minutes

APRIL 25, 2000

The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Mattson,
Eichelberg, Sawatzke and Russek present. Jude was absent.

As part of Boy/Girl County Day, students attended a portion of today's
meeting to learn more about County Board proceedings. The County Board introduced
themselves, their districts, and highlighted various current issues.

Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes of 4-18-00 as presented, seconded
by Russek, carried unanimously.

Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Sawatzke,
carried 5-0.

On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the
Consent Agenda as follows:

Doug Gruber, Auditor/Treasurer, provided an update on Joint Ditch #15.
Correspondence from Brian Asleson, Assistant County Attorney, outlined the
County's options for removing broken tiles in an approximate 150-yard area
and making it an open ditch. The County is limited to a $50,000 threshold
for annual repair on a ditch system. Drainage law requires that costs for
repair be separated from costs for improvements. As this would be considered
an improvement, a petition and hearing process is required. Statutes require
that a petition for improvement be signed by:

1) at least 26% of the owners of property affected by the proposed improvement;

2) At least 26% of the owners of property that the proposed improvement
passes over;

3) The owners of at least 26% of the property area affected by the proposed
improvement; or

4) The owners of at least 26% of the property area that the proposed
improvement passes over. The petition must be filed with the Wright County
Auditor as the majority of the ditch is in Wright County. The petition is
presented to the Joint Ditch Authority within 10 days of the filing. An
engineer review and hearing process would follow. The consensus was for
the Auditor/Treasurer to contact the landowner(s) to ascertain whether they
would be interested in the repair.

Gruber made a correction to page 13 of the claims listing, KRWC ($312.00).
The claim was incorrectly coded to the Extension Office and will be transferred
to Budget 20-820, Waste Management Fund. In response to a question by Sawatzke,
Gruber indicated that funding will be from line item 5907, SCORE funds.
Mattson referenced page 10 and claims for medical services for Jail inmates.

These funds are beyond the cost of the contract with Allina to provide
medical care for inmates. Mattson did not support providing medical service
free for inmates when many taxpayers cannot afford insurance. The issue
of recapturing medical costs from inmates will be discussed at the 4-26-00
Ways & Means Committee meeting. On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg,
all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Sheriff Hozempa presented a retirement plaque to Dennis Compton. Compton
was honored for his dedicated service from 1977-2000 and served in the areas
of Patrol, School Liaison Officer, Detective, and Community Service Sergeant.

Compton represented the County on various committees including Y2K, Safe
Communities, Safe Schools and was the Supervisor/Coordinator of the DARE
Program School Liaison Deputies.

Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, presented several items for referral
to Committee. After discussion, Russek moved to send to the Ways & Means
Committee the following issue: Mel Terning's Drainage Proposal Next To Collinwood
Park (Terning appealed the Parks Committee Recommendation). The following
issues will be sent back to the Parks Commission for recommendation:

Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, introduced Joel Schilling, SEH, an
environmental consultant working with the CSAH 14 bridge replacement project.
Schilling explained what has transpired thus far including preparation of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in December, a Board resolution
indicating a negative declaration on the EAW and requirement for an EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) on 2-8-00, and permit applications sent
to all required agencies on 1-27-00.

The DNR and the Wetland Conservation Act are subject to the MN Administrative
Procedures Act which requires them to act within 60 days of receiving an
application. The time frame is now 70-80 days and no permits have been issued.
One of the frustrations realized is that changes were made in the plans
submitted relative to respondents comments to the EAW.

The Army Corp. Of Engineers is awaiting a decision until the SWCD convenes
a Technical Evaluation Panel (scheduled for 5-2-00). The DNR has forwarded
language that State Law prevents them from issuing a permit until their
decision required under the Wetland Conservation Act is made.

In contacting BWSR staff, it was made clear to Schilling that there is
no provision in the Wetland Conservation Act that prevents the DNR from
issuing a permit. Schilling said that the County acted correctly in January
to advise staff to advertise for bids for the project. He explained that
the Army Corp. Of Engineers changed their rules in January in an effort
for the State and Federal governments to work together to streamline efforts.
However, the opposite has resulted.

Brian Asleson, Assistant County Attorney, said he understands that the
DNR and Army Corp Of Engineers want the local SWCD to act on the wetland
approval before they issue their permit. He thought there was a chance that
the permits would fall in line if approval were received from the local
SWCD. In design and otherwise, it needs to be conveyed that the road authority
has done as much as possible to minimize impacts.

The contractor for the project has indicated that they could start work
on 4-27-00 (bridge removal) with approximately two weeks of work. The problem
with authorizing this would be if the permits were delayed, the detour would
be in effect for a longer period of time. The County may also be required
to follow the Migratory Bird Act if the bridge is not removed which involves
netting the project area at an approximate cost of $2000. Fingalson referenced
the bid proposal which states in summary that the contractor will receive
no additional compensation due to a delay in issuance of permits.

Sawatzke asked whether the problem deals with the permitting agencies
not indicating what needs to be done to obtain the permits or whether the
County is not willing to do what the agencies are requiring. Response was
that both were partially the case. The State does not like that mitigation
is not being provided on site and that the State road repair bank is being
used for road reconstruction. Fingalson said the area is wetland so there
is not a suitable site for mitigation. However, they are willing to review
this for inclusion in Phase II of the project which involves completing
the remainder of Hwy. 14 in two years. The problem being realized is that
each agency is not willing to issue a permit on their own, they want to
wait and see what the other agencies do.

Discussion followed on the County potentially invoking the Administrative
Procedures Act which requires agencies to take action based on expiration
of the 60-day window. Another remedy would be Civil Court. Asleson stated
the danger in proceeding in either remedy would be that the Army Corp. Of
Engineers is not subject to the 60-day rule. This only applies to State
agencies. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said that if the State agencies
were required to proceed under the act and did issue permits, then those
permits could be presented to the Army Corp. Of Engineers for response.

Schilling stated that the Army Corp. Of Engineers also wants archeological
searches performed on the road embankments and abutments to the existing
bridge. A response has been forwarded to them reflecting that the State
has cleared this requirement. Fingalson recommended not allowing the contractor
to start the work due to the uncertainty of the permits. Sawatzke moved
to lay this issue over for one week, seconded by Russek, carried 4-0.

Gene Branstrom, E.M. Branstrom Associates Architects, Inc., presented
a list of alternatives and recommendations relating to the bids receiving
for the Public Building, Wright County Fairgrounds.

Bids were opened at the last County Board meeting. The Architects recommendation
was to award the base bid plus alternate A-2 & A-3 (increase alternate
A-2 type building size) at the low bid price of $127,366.00 plus owner expenses
of $11,000 or a total of $138,366.00. Russek moved to approve the recommendation,
seconded by Eichelberg. The motion and second were amended to award the
bid to Durdahl Construction at $127,366.00.

Funding will be from Fund 34, Capital Account. The motion carried 4-0.
Sawatzke moved to authorize up to $11,000 in expenditures for the owner
furnished items and for a 6% fee to be paid to E.M. Branstrom Associate
Architects, Inc. upon receipt of an invoice. Funding will be from the Capital
Account. Motion was seconded by Russek. It was noted that the additional
$11,000 would be from County funds and that the County would be responsible
for 6.5% sales tax on materials purchased. Motion carried 4-0.

Bills Approved

Brian Abrahamson 342.86

Albertville Body & Fender 356.00

AMI 4513.20

Ancom Communications Inc 643.88

Mary Anderson 136.89

City Annandale 1131.20

Anoka County IS Dept. 325.00

Apec Corporation 205.41

Brian Asleson 100.55

Beaudry Propane Inc 1231.25

Best Inc 3703.67

Judy Brown 150.31

Buffalo Drug 913.79

Buffalo Glass & Lock 294.79

Buffalo Hospital 297.30

Buffalo Hosp-OTPT Commerce 690.65

Catholic Charities 8744.10

Central MN Mental Health Cntr 240.00

Computer Training International 455.00

Dales 66 106.50

Decorative Designs Inc. 175.53

John Dziuk 453.60

Dale Engel 107.88

Engineering Repro Systems 225.57

Debbie Ernst 115.99

Facility Systems Inc 234.00

Maribel Fernendez 333.59

Gateway 789.04

GE Capital Info Tech Solutions 8550.07

Annette Habisch 169.48

Hillyard Floor Care Supply 1193.41

Lou Jopp 171.62

KRWC 312.00

Kimberly LeClaire 618.30

Loberg Electric 2730.96

Maple Lake Messenger 115.96

Marco Business Products 2275.05

Martin-Mcallisters Consulting 609.00

McDowall Comfort Mngmnt 6419.56

MCP Carstar Collision Center 853.67

Minnesota Elevator Inc 1803.00

MN Assn. Of Women Police 100.00

MN County Recorders Assoc. 100.00

MN Gis-Lis Conference 300.00

MN Sheriffs Association 166.45

Mobil Oil Corpporation 574.21

Monticello Township 1464.60

Mountain Stream Sports & App 583.25

Office Depot 1167.90

Ray Oherron Co. Inc 4233.91

On Site Monitoring 8662.00

Pagenet 621.13

Performance Office Papers 857.21

Phillips Petroleum Company 184.32

Phoenix International SC 794.00

Ranger Joes 176.93

Kim Rapheal 520.00

Genell Reese 145.06

Sharp Electronics 262.84

St. Cloud State Universtiy 712.00

State Of MN Intertech Group 989.52

Stockholm Township 368.00

Tactical Alliance Inc 125.00

Trophies Plus 155.02

Carol Vander Kooi 5299.99

Matthew Walker 169.48

West Publishing Compnay 662.64

Wright County Highway Dept 23172.67

Wright Hennepin Electric 178.49

31 payments less than $100 1,286.67

Final Total 106,872.92

The meeting adjourned at 10:38 A.M.

Published in the Howard Lake-Waverly Herald, May 15, 2000.

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD

MINUTES

APRIL 25, 2000

The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Mattson,
Eichelberg, Sawatzke and Russek present. Jude was absent.

As part of Boy/Girl County Day, students attended a portion of today's
meeting to learn more about County Board proceedings. The County Board introduced
themselves, their districts, and highlighted various current issues.

Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes of 4-18-00 as presented, seconded
by Russek, carried unanimously.

Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Sawatzke,
carried 5-0.

On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the
Consent Agenda as follows:

Doug Gruber, Auditor/Treasurer, provided an update on Joint Ditch #15.
Correspondence from Brian Asleson, Assistant County Attorney, outlined the
County's options for removing broken tiles in an approximate 150-yard area
and making it an open ditch. The County is limited to a $50,000 threshold
for annual repair on a ditch system. Drainage law requires that costs for
repair be separated from costs for improvements. As this would be considered
an improvement, a petition and hearing process is required. Statutes require
that a petition for improvement be signed by:

1) at least 26% of the owners of property affected by the proposed improvement;

2) At least 26% of the owners of property that the proposed improvement
passes over;

3) The owners of at least 26% of the property area affected by the proposed
improvement; or

4) The owners of at least 26% of the property area that the proposed
improvement passes over. The petition must be filed with the Wright County
Auditor as the majority of the ditch is in Wright County. The petition is
presented to the Joint Ditch Authority within 10 days of the filing. An
engineer review and hearing process would follow. The consensus was for
the Auditor/Treasurer to contact the landowner(s) to ascertain whether they
would be interested in the repair.

Gruber made a correction to page 13 of the claims listing, KRWC ($312.00).
The claim was incorrectly coded to the Extension Office and will be transferred
to Budget 20-820, Waste Management Fund. In response to a question by Sawatzke,
Gruber indicated that funding will be from line item 5907, SCORE funds.
Mattson referenced page 10 and claims for medical services for Jail inmates.

These funds are beyond the cost of the contract with Allina to provide
medical care for inmates. Mattson did not support providing medical service
free for inmates when many taxpayers cannot afford insurance. The issue
of recapturing medical costs from inmates will be discussed at the 4-26-00
Ways & Means Committee meeting. On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg,
all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Sheriff Hozempa presented a retirement plaque to Dennis Compton. Compton
was honored for his dedicated service from 1977-2000 and served in the areas
of Patrol, School Liaison Officer, Detective, and Community Service Sergeant.

Compton represented the County on various committees including Y2K, Safe
Communities, Safe Schools and was the Supervisor/Coordinator of the DARE
Program School Liaison Deputies.

Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, presented several items for referral
to Committee. After discussion, Russek moved to send to the Ways & Means
Committee the following issue: Mel Terning's Drainage Proposal Next To Collinwood
Park (Terning appealed the Parks Committee Recommendation). The following
issues will be sent back to the Parks Commission for recommendation:

Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, introduced Joel Schilling, SEH, an
environmental consultant working with the CSAH 14 bridge replacement project.
Schilling explained what has transpired thus far including preparation of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in December, a Board resolution
indicating a negative declaration on the EAW and requirement for an EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) on 2-8-00, and permit applications sent
to all required agencies on 1-27-00.

The DNR and the Wetland Conservation Act are subject to the MN Administrative
Procedures Act which requires them to act within 60 days of receiving an
application. The time frame is now 70-80 days and no permits have been issued.
One of the frustrations realized is that changes were made in the plans
submitted relative to respondents comments to the EAW.

The Army Corp. Of Engineers is awaiting a decision until the SWCD convenes
a Technical Evaluation Panel (scheduled for 5-2-00). The DNR has forwarded
language that State Law prevents them from issuing a permit until their
decision required under the Wetland Conservation Act is made.

In contacting BWSR staff, it was made clear to Schilling that there is
no provision in the Wetland Conservation Act that prevents the DNR from
issuing a permit. Schilling said that the County acted correctly in January
to advise staff to advertise for bids for the project. He explained that
the Army Corp. Of Engineers changed their rules in January in an effort
for the State and Federal governments to work together to streamline efforts.
However, the opposite has resulted.

Brian Asleson, Assistant County Attorney, said he understands that the
DNR and Army Corp Of Engineers want the local SWCD to act on the wetland
approval before they issue their permit. He thought there was a chance that
the permits would fall in line if approval were received from the local
SWCD. In design and otherwise, it needs to be conveyed that the road authority
has done as much as possible to minimize impacts.

The contractor for the project has indicated that they could start work
on 4-27-00 (bridge removal) with approximately two weeks of work. The problem
with authorizing this would be if the permits were delayed, the detour would
be in effect for a longer period of time. The County may also be required
to follow the Migratory Bird Act if the bridge is not removed which involves
netting the project area at an approximate cost of $2000. Fingalson referenced
the bid proposal which states in summary that the contractor will receive
no additional compensation due to a delay in issuance of permits.

Sawatzke asked whether the problem deals with the permitting agencies
not indicating what needs to be done to obtain the permits or whether the
County is not willing to do what the agencies are requiring. Response was
that both were partially the case. The State does not like that mitigation
is not being provided on site and that the State road repair bank is being
used for road reconstruction. Fingalson said the area is wetland so there
is not a suitable site for mitigation. However, they are willing to review
this for inclusion in Phase II of the project which involves completing
the remainder of Hwy. 14 in two years. The problem being realized is that
each agency is not willing to issue a permit on their own, they want to
wait and see what the other agencies do.

Discussion followed on the County potentially invoking the Administrative
Procedures Act which requires agencies to take action based on expiration
of the 60-day window. Another remedy would be Civil Court. Asleson stated
the danger in proceeding in either remedy would be that the Army Corp. Of
Engineers is not subject to the 60-day rule. This only applies to State
agencies. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said that if the State agencies
were required to proceed under the act and did issue permits, then those
permits could be presented to the Army Corp. Of Engineers for response.

Schilling stated that the Army Corp. Of Engineers also wants archeological
searches performed on the road embankments and abutments to the existing
bridge. A response has been forwarded to them reflecting that the State
has cleared this requirement. Fingalson recommended not allowing the contractor
to start the work due to the uncertainty of the permits. Sawatzke moved
to lay this issue over for one week, seconded by Russek, carried 4-0.

Gene Branstrom, E.M. Branstrom Associates Architects, Inc., presented
a list of alternatives and recommendations relating to the bids receiving
for the Public Building, Wright County Fairgrounds.

Bids were opened at the last County Board meeting. The Architects recommendation
was to award the base bid plus alternate A-2 & A-3 (increase alternate
A-2 type building size) at the low bid price of $127,366.00 plus owner expenses
of $11,000 or a total of $138,366.00. Russek moved to approve the recommendation,
seconded by Eichelberg. The motion and second were amended to award the
bid to Durdahl Construction at $127,366.00.

Funding will be from Fund 34, Capital Account. The motion carried 4-0.
Sawatzke moved to authorize up to $11,000 in expenditures for the owner
furnished items and for a 6% fee to be paid to E.M. Branstrom Associate
Architects, Inc. upon receipt of an invoice. Funding will be from the Capital
Account. Motion was seconded by Russek. It was noted that the additional
$11,000 would be from County funds and that the County would be responsible
for 6.5% sales tax on materials purchased. Motion carried 4-0.